Absolute disgrace

[CharlieG]

Pathetic performance by a team with not an ounce of the heart they showed in September last year. Weak effort.

Haven't been more disappointed with them in several years. Completely outclassed by a team with no right to beat us at Stadium Australia. There's still time to turn it around (as there was last year) but in the next three weeks we play Adelaide and West Coast. We're looking at being 8-7 after round 15 at best.

Maybe they're just happy with one premiership medal. I hope not, because the ability is there to be one of the great football dynasties. They just don't seem to want it enough.

 

[nicky]

Pathetic performance by a team with not an ounce of the heart they showed in September last year. Weak effort.

Haven't been more disappointed with them in several years. Completely outclassed by a team with no right to beat us at Stadium Australia. There's still time to turn it around (as there was last year) but in the next three weeks we play Adelaide and West Coast. We're looking at being 8-7 after round 15 at best.

Maybe they're just happy with one premiership medal. I hope not, because the ability is there to be one of the great football dynasties. They just don't seem to want it enough.

extremely disappointing

 

[CharlieG]

The most annoying thing is that they'll look at a 13 point loss and kid themselves that they weren't out of it at the end.

 

[johnson_26]

I really don't think it's all bad for the swans....

Sure, you guys were out of the game 5-7 mins into the final term, but when has a sydney side have virtually none of it's guns fire for a maximum of at least 2 quaters and only got done by 13 points?

Goodes was shut down by lonie, presti blanketed the best full foward in the game, schneider was quite, micky o'loughlan wasn't his dangerous self.

I think there are some positives to be taken out of a loss like this. Really, take heart in the fact you had minimal good players (kirk's total disposals + jude bolton well down aswell) and only got rolled by a few, i'd take heart from that...

i'm not saying praise them, they were completely outclassed. They seemed a bit complacent, but it's not all bad boys!

 

[CharlieG]

I really don't think it's all bad for the swans....

Sure, you guys were out of the game 5-7 mins into the final term, but when has a sydney side have virtually none of it's guns fire for a maximum of at least 2 quaters and only got done by 13 points?

Quite often. The Swans regularly ****-fart around for three quarters and then try a hail-mary comeback in the last 15 minutes. When it works (see Geelong SF) it's memorable, but it's just plain undisciplined and from a team that prides itself on discipline it isn't acceptable.

[qutoe]Goodes was shut down by lonie, presti blanketed the best full foward in the game, schneider was quite, micky o'loughlan wasn't his dangerous self.[/quote]

O'Loughlin was actually playing his best game for a few weeks. Was one of the few that showed up.

I think there are some positives to be taken out of a loss like this.

No, sorry, there aren't. Don't take my thoughts as a lack of respect for the Pies, who turned up on the night and fully deserved the points. But at the same time if Sydney had made more than a half-arsed attempt to play football we probably would have won. It breaks my heart but 90% of our losses are lost inside our own players' heads.

Really, take heart in the fact you had minimal good players (kirk's total disposals + jude bolton well down aswell) and only got rolled by a few, i'd take heart from that...

So will some of the Swans, and that's what worries me. Where the reigning premiers for ****'s sake, and we've lost four of our six home games! There are no honourable losses. NOT ONE!

i'm not saying praise them, they were completely outclassed. They seemed a bit complacent, but it's not all bad boys!

Your name isn't Ryan O'Keefe, is it?

 

[goalseeker]

Haven't been more disappointed with them in several years. Completely outclassed by a team with no right to beat us at Stadium Australia.

Sorry but rights don't come into it.... outplayed, outrun and outlasted by team who made plenty of errors but backed themselves and played for each other. Great effort in the third and looked like you could have gone on with it... but two quarters of chipping the ball around without driving was just plain boring footy. Interestingly I didn't think our forward line up was as potent as it has been and certainly not as cohesive ... however IMO, some of your key players did not have a quiet night out, rather they were shut down. Big bad Barry Hall for example... great player but should have blitzed Presti!!

 

[CharlieG]

Sorry but rights don't come into it.... outplayed, outrun and outlasted by team who made plenty of errors but backed themselves and played for each other. Great effort in the third and looked like you could have gone on with it... but two quarters of chipping the ball around without driving was just plain boring footy. Interestingly I didn't think our forward line up was as potent as it has been and certainly not as cohesive ... however IMO, some of your key players did not have a quiet night out, rather they were shut down. Big bad Barry Hall for example... great player but should have blitzed Presti!!

Oh, I agree entirely. My 'no right' comment was not intended literally. Rather, Sydney can and should win every game they play in Sydney. Instead we're 2-4.

 

[CharlieG]

I've been thinking about changes. Stuff this 'stability' crap. They're a little too stable for my liking and a mid-season shake up won't hurt. It was around this time last year that Saddington, Bevan, McVeigh and Nicks were replaced with Vogels, Fosdike, a fit Williams and briefly Malceski. Freshened the team up considerably.

Chambers simply has to go. He's plain incompetent. Whack some stilts on Tim Schmidt and he can come in.

Realistically, bring Schmidt in for Mathews (did he touch the ball tonight?). Vogels in for Chambers - surely Goodes can pick up the slack around the ground and we can by with Jolly, unless Doyle is ready. I'd also bring Dempster in for Richards who had his worst game in red and white tonight. Malceski must be ready again, too? If so, I'd look at dropping Ablett who hasn't done a great deal.

 

[grimlock]

Malceski didn't play in the reserves
Doyle played exclusively at FF
Dempster didn't have much to do at FB for the reserves (we won 200-odd to 30-odd)

Moore was really impressive.
Bevan, Schmidt, Willoughby, Vogels will be lining up for places as well.

 

[Jabso]

I don't know why Goodes isn't played in the ruck more. It would be a matchup nightmare. Goodes isn't carrying an injury and the ruck is hardly a dangerous place anymore. He has shown he can be a more than handy ruckman, so why not play him there especially when he is needed.

 

[Jeffers]

We deserved to be belted by 60 points we were that pathetic.Actually i would of rather taken that to make Roos realise how many passengers we are carrying. Swallow your pride Roos and admit you made the biggest mistake bringing in two hacks in Richards and Chambers.

Mathews can kindly drop himself too for doing SFA since he's come back.

Give Earl Shaw a run in the ruck at least he can tap it to advantage.

 

[clarence.valley]

The most annoying thing is that they'll look at a 13 point loss and kid themselves that they weren't out of it at the end.

maintain the rage charlie.if enough swan's supporters protest.we may come back.its a big ask given the gutless perfomance at the selection table.

 

[CharlieG]

We deserved to be belted by 60 points we were that pathetic.Actually i would of rather taken that to make Roos realise how many passengers we are carrying. Swallow your pride Roos and admit you made the biggest mistake bringing in two hacks in Richards and Chambers.

Mathews can kindly drop himself too for doing SFA since he's come back.

Give Earl Shaw a run in the ruck at least he can tap it to advantage.

Richards has potential. I think he could well be a 100 game player for the Swans... but he isn't performing at the moment.

Chambers is a down and out disaster. What is it with Sydney and hack ruckmen? Gavin Rose, Stefan Carey, Brent Green, Simon Feast, Leigh Brockman, Ricky Mott, James Meiklejohn... and that's just since I started following footy!

 

[Tuco]

We were poor, and yet remained competitive all night. It felt far worse watching them floundering around than it actually was in retrospect.

The truth is our gameplan is very effective, and we actually pressured the Pies fairly well. But our style of play comes a cropper if our conversion percentage is poor.

When you get an average of 26 shots at goal in a game, and you blow 10 out of your first 12 chances, you're always going to struggle.

Tellingly after kicking 2.10, we kicked 9.6. If we had shown a little less panic in our forward line early it would have been a pretty good night for us.

The Pies on the other hand played well to their strengths. It was a very potent forward line.

But I did notice that their smalls stayed down and often chose not to contest the flight. This was frustrating as we continually allowed them to simply crumb off our backline for cheap goals. Leon, Didak, Lonie and Shaw all love to wait for the drop - and perhaps we should have structured around this fact a little more then we did?

We have plenty to work on this week, that's for sure.

One thing I'd like to pass on to the boys, though, is that it is about time we quit trying to bounce the ball out at Telstra. The surface has never favoured it in all the years we've played there. And you'd think we'd know to try to limit using them whenever possible by now?

 

[CharlieG]

We were poor, and yet remained competitive all night.

No we didn't. Take out two ten minute bursts (one of which was when the game was lost) and we were smashed.

It felt far worse watching them floundering around than it actually was in retrospect.

The point was, they were floundering around. The reigning premiers!

The truth is our gameplan is very effective, and we actually pressured the Pies fairly well. But our style of play comes a cropper if our conversion percentage is poor.

Collingwood played 'our gameplan' better than we did last night.

That's the thing. 'Our gameplan' doesn't work well. It's not our best style of play. We should be hard. Yes. We should be patient. Yes. But we should not be indecisive and we should never be defensive by choice. We have Kennelly, Bolton, Barry, Dempster (when he's in the team), Goodes, Fosdike, O'Keefe and Davis... all of whom can move the ball very well in their different ways. They just don't.

When you get an average of 26 shots at goal in a game, and you blow 10 out of your first 12 chances, you're always going to struggle.

This misses the point. Collingwood blew chances that were inside 30 metres and directly in front. We missed hail-mary shots from outside fifty, or reckless snaps. The reason for that is that we weren't good enough to take a mark inside 30 metres and directly in front. Football is a simple game. Move the ball quickly before the opposition can push numbers back in defense. If you've got Hall, O'Loughlin and Davis (I know longer include layabout O'Keefe in that group) in the one forward line, give them space and give them the ball long on a lead.

Tellingly after kicking 2.10, we kicked 9.6. If we had shown a little less panic in our forward line early it would have been a pretty good night for us.

We might have stolen another victory that would have covered up the holes in the team again. It's maddening that we keep selecting the same 22 players when half of them - Davis, McVeigh, Mathews, O'Keefe, O'Loughlin, Ablett, Barry, Chambers, Richards, Crouch and Kirk - aren't actually playing very well.

The Pies on the other hand played well to their strengths. It was a very potent forward line.

Perhaps because they were getting better delivery.

But I did notice that their smalls stayed down and often chose not to contest the flight. This was frustrating as we continually allowed them to simply crumb off our backline for cheap goals. Leon, Didak, Lonie and Shaw all love to wait for the drop - and perhaps we should have structured around this fact a little more then we did?

Why don't we have small forwards crumbing? How many times are inside fifties wasted because Hall or O'Loughlin drop a mark, and Schneider is still up on the wing? Schneider's been playing well but most of his opportunities have come from flukey snaps or from outside fifty. He isn't playing a traditional forward pocket role and we desperately need him to.

We have plenty to work on this week, that's for sure.

One thing I'd like to pass on to the boys, though, is that it is about time we quit trying to bounce the ball out at Telstra. The surface has never favoured it in all the years we've played there. And you'd think we'd know to try to limit using them whenever possible by now?

Running is our strength... or at least, it should be.

 

[Tuco]

Our defensive pressure was working well. We held them to 43 pts in the first half and went inside 50 almost as many times. That part of the game was working - despite the massive pressure applied to us, by a damn good side, it's worth mentioning.

But we did ourselves no favours with our kicking. It was the difference on the night, however you look at it. When the pressure turned the play our way - we really muffed our chances. But this overlooks the fact that we certainly did turn the play our way enough times to give that game a real shake.

I'm certainly not going to argue that we were anything but the second best team out there.

To say "take out" the ten minute bursts is silly, though. We've always played that way. Applying pressure then turning it on in bursts is how we usually win games - our PF against St Kilda would've looked pretty dire too if you'd taken out the two "ten minute bursts" that set up the victory.

We play this way because we man up and follow the flood into our own forward line and mark up on opposition players who push forward into our defensive 50.

Rebounding from defence after this happens usually means a vacant forward line - which often suits our forwards. But as you say the downside is a lack of crumbing players much of the time.

You have to hand it to the Pies defenders, though. When we created the on-on-ones in our forward line, they held their own crucially in the context of the game.

What was disappointing was how poorly we handled the flood - and those floating players in our forward line. More often than not we've turned those situations into positives, but last night we struggled to get a handle on it.

On our running game - I think the surface did us no favours. It was pretty slippery (it's been a shocking week up here again - much like it was for the Saints match) and once again we ran ourselves into trouble when a kick might have been the correct call.

But to say that our gameplan doesn't work forgets how often in the past it has worked, including our Premiership victory.

I agree totally that it's time for some personnel changes. And I believe Roos has already hinted at that happening. We've really missed Mal the last few weeks. Can't wait for him to get back!

It hurts losing to the Pies. But this season isn't over by a long shot.

 

[clarence.valley]

Malceski didn't play in the reserves
Doyle played exclusively at FF
Dempster didn't have much to do at FB for the reserves (we won 200-odd to 30-odd)

Moore was really impressive.
Bevan, Schmidt, Willoughby, Vogels will be lining up for places as well.

these guys would be thrilled to the back teeth,that according to today's revelation's' we went into the game with ELEVEN unfit player's plus richards and chamber's.

 

[CharlieG]

Our defensive pressure was working well. We held them to 43 pts in the first half and went inside 50 almost as many times. That part of the game was working - despite the massive pressure applied to us, by a damn good side, it's worth mentioning.

They missed three very gettable shots. They kept their score down to 43, not us.

But we did ourselves no favours with our kicking. It was the difference on the night, however you look at it. When the pressure turned the play our way - we really muffed our chances. But this overlooks the fact that we certainly did turn the play our way enough times to give that game a real shake.

The thing is 'our gameplan' calls for impeccable skills. When these drop off we lose. Simple. It's why we also always lose in wet conditions - because we try to defy nature and play dry weather football and look for pinpoint short passes.

I'm certainly not going to argue that we were anything but the second best team out there.

To say "take out" the ten minute bursts is silly, though. We've always played that way. Applying pressure then turning it on in bursts is how we usually win games - our PF against St Kilda would've looked pretty dire too if you'd taken out the two "ten minute bursts" that set up the victory.

We were never clearly outclassed in the St Kilda final. We were second to the ball through the middle of the game, but we weren't diabolical and only the Saints-infatuated commentators and similarly insightful Saints fans thought the game was over.

Saturday night was completely different. We were SMASHED for 100 minutes. The scoreboard never told the full story because Collingwood let us off the hook with their own failures (which is nothing to be proud of for us).

We play this way because we man up and follow the flood into our own forward line

Which is counter-productive. It plays into their hands by giving them plenty of time to flood back, and by following them in there we give ourselves a choice between trying for a speculative bomb over the top, or trying to pick out a needle in a haystack. Now, when you've got Barry Hall, Michael O'Loughlin, Nick Davis, Ryan O'Keefe and Adam Schneider in your forward line, how[/] does that make sense?

Rebounding from defence after this happens usually means a vacant forward line - which often suits our forwards. But as you say the downside is a lack of crumbing players much of the time.

No it doesn't. They're still on the half-back flank and we have nothing to kick to. It's inevitably a throw-in on the wing: we usually win the clearance, but they've already got half their players ahead of the footy.

You have to hand it to the Pies defenders, though. When we created the on-on-ones in our forward line, they held their own crucially in the context of the game.

One on ones? There were hardly any.

What was disappointing was how poorly we handled the flood - and those floating players in our forward line. More often than not we've turned those situations into positives, but last night we struggled to get a handle on it.

As I said, it works only when the team a) has perfect skills and b) is super fit. Neither of these were the case on Saturday night, and we were exposed when we still could have won by actually playing football.

On our running game - I think the surface did us no favours. It was pretty slippery (it's been a shocking week up here again - much like it was for the Saints match) and once again we ran ourselves into trouble when a kick might have been the correct call.

Eh? You've been defending the stop-start nonsense, and suddenly now you acknowledge that kicking it long best suited the conditions?

But to say that our gameplan doesn't work forgets how often in the past it has worked, including our Premiership victory.

Flawed argument. Yes, we won the Geelong and Grand Finals but we won them by a combined margin of seven points. One more goal to either team, and we still haven't won a flag in 73 years.

Not saying we didn't deserve the flag (we did) but the sheer truth is that we effectively tossed a coin twice, and got away with it both times. Sorry, but just because luck was on our side last year doesn't mean we should play below ourselves, in the hope that it happens again. Everything has to go right and if only one variable isn't in our favour, the match goes the other way.

Why do that, when we are clearly capable of playing better football and taking control of the game ourselves?

I agree totally that it's time for some personnel changes. And I believe Roos has already hinted at that happening. We've really missed Mal the last few weeks. Can't wait for him to get back!

You know that it's just going to be along the lines of 'out: McVeigh, in: Dempster'.

It hurts losing to the Pies. But this season isn't over by a long shot.

No, it isn't. But they'd want to snap out of this crap pretty damn quickly.

 

[Tuco]

They missed three very gettable shots. They kept their score down to 43, not us.

It's true they should have done beter. But we missed far more chances thena they did

The thing is 'our gameplan' calls for impeccable skills. When these drop off we lose. Simple. It's why we also always lose in wet conditions - because we try to defy nature and play dry weather football and look for pinpoint short passes.

I agree with this. The most annoying aspect of the game was our apparent inability to adjust when they put us in a losing situation.

We were never clearly outclassed in the St Kilda final. We were second to the ball through the middle of the game, but we weren't diabolical and only the Saints-infatuated commentators and similarly insightful Saints fans thought the game was over.

Not sure what this has to do with my point that we broke the game open in short successful bursts. And that you can't simply ignore these periods when our game dominates.

Saturday night was completely different. We were SMASHED for 100 minutes. The scoreboard never told the full story because Collingwood let us off the hook with their own failures (which is nothing to be proud of for us).

True. Hence I said we were never anything but the second best side on the night. I'm not making excuses here.

Which is counter-productive. It plays into their hands by giving them plenty of time to flood back, and by following them in there we give ourselves a choice between trying for a speculative bomb over the top, or trying to pick out a needle in a haystack. Now, when you've got Barry Hall, Michael O'Loughlin, Nick Davis, Ryan O'Keefe and Adam Schneider in your forward line, how[/] does that make sense?

This is out of our hands. If they don't go in there, we don't follow. But we play the stoppages very well, so it ut usually doesn't hurt us too badly. We were down in this department on Sat night, however, and it cost us. And I think I mentioned this was disappointing.

No it doesn't. They're still on the half-back flank and we have nothing to kick to. It's inevitably a throw-in on the wing: we usually win the clearance, but they've already got half their players ahead of the footy.

Sorry. It does. Our midfield-positioned forwards such as ROK etc are drilled well on the timed run. And when we break from the backline you will often see players streaming into space across our half forward line. And a Davis or a Micky or a Hall will often be one out in the forward 50. In fact, the few times ROK got free on the night were in situations such as these.

What we saw on Sat however, was Collingwood beating our forwards when we created these rare openings.

But you are correct. We never got the balance right. But that had as much to do with Collingwoods successful counter tactics as anything else.

One on ones? There were hardly any.

see above.

As I said, it works only when the team a) has perfect skills and b) is super fit. Neither of these were the case on Saturday night, and we were exposed when we still could have won by actually playing football.

Roos has said as much regarding you point "b" And we will see changes.

Eh? You've been defending the stop-start nonsense, and suddenly now you acknowledge that kicking it long best suited the conditions?

I wasn't defending the stop-start nonsense. I was decrying the poor kicking for goal which exposed this area of our game which was well below par.

And I stand by my statement that the ground was a tricky surface to play on. Players were slipping all over the place, and were struggling to take bouncing balls in a single grab. Goodes was a prime example - and we know how strong he usually is in that department.

Flawed argument. Yes, we won the Geelong and Grand Finals but we won them by a combined margin of seven points. One more goal to either team, and we still haven't won a flag in 73 years.

How is it flawed to say that a team which has just won a flag has confidence in the gameplan that got it for them?

Not that I don't believe we couldn't fine tune it. And I think the heavy skills work we did in the off-season has shown that Roos is still working to improve on it.

Not really sure why we're argueing. I'm simply not a baby-with the bathwater kind of supporter, i guess. And please don't think I'm suggesting that you are either. But don't get me wrong and think I'm merely making excuses for our performance. I saw some terrible deficiencies in our game over the last few weeks.

But nothing that I've seen looks beyond repair.

cheers

 

[music_2000]

we'll bounce back when we play Fremantle next week. they had a harder time than we did I can tell you that

 

[mattyh]

Presently, the Swans play a brand of football best described as boring as bat**** - which if all sides were treated equally, as we know they aren't, would under normal circumstances take you nowhere.

Nice trolling mate . Amazing the ignorance of so called AFL fans who think the Swans are only playing this type of footy. Actually who has a better "For" on the ladder...

Sydney 12 7 5 0 1195 991 120.5 28

Hawthorn 12 5 7 0 981 1187 82.6 20

We have kicked 214 more points troll boy and been more exciting too watch then your pathetic mob. We had a bad game on Saturday but we are in a much better position than the Dorks.

What will you be doing in September? Not much I suspect.

 

[skipper kelly]

...........

 

[Lach72]

It's obvious where the problem lies...
Barry Hall - Drop him and it'll all be better, especially this week

 

[Jeffers]

It's obvious where the problem lies...
Barry Hall - Drop him and it'll all be better, especially this week

No chance buddy!